Category Archive
The following is a list of all entries from the Uncategorized category.
Who Cares About Class?
The most recent fracas between Obama and Clinton was, as you have probably heard, the “bitter” comment made by Obama. The comment then led to numerous back-and-forth criticisms.
Like most, I am unimpressed by the attacks the candidates are making on one another, and worry about the effect this will have on the general election. However, I think that this is bringing to the fore an issue that we don’t talk about enough during elections: socioeconomic class. My question is this: What do you see as each candidate’s (include any candidate who interests you, including Green, Republican, or independent candidates) stance on socioeconomic class? How much does the issue of class figure into your decision regarding which candidate to support?
I’m thinking back on many veiled remarks that have had to do with class in other elections … e.g. “VOTE OR DIE”; the accusations around Dean’s campaign of Volvos and lattes; Bill Clinton’s image of being a “man of the people”; Ross Perot’s ability to make a major run for President because of his tremendous personal wealth …
Snapshot of Research
Take about five minutes to provide a brief “snapshot” (in words) of where your study is right now. Include questions and concerns.
After you’ve posted your snapshot, select another classmate’s snapshot to respond to.
“Let’s just saddle up and have an argument”- Bill Clinton
Hey Everyone,
I was just looking through the blog site and stumbled on this article from CNNpolitics about Bill Clinton defending his wife Hillary’s ability to “roll with the punches” I pasted it below to read because I just wanted to expose it to the group.
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL BLOG PROMPT
Written by: CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
Bill Clinton took aim at critics of his wife Hillary Clinton Wednesday, adding that “if a politician doesn’t wanna get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office.”
“If a politician doesn’t wanna get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office,” the former president said in Parkersburg, West Virginia. “If a football player doesn’t want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn’t put the pads on.”
“Clipping” is an illegal football maneuver where an offensive player blocks a defensive player from behind, or below the waist.
Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn’t trouble him. “I don’t give a riff about all this name-calling that’s going on. They’ve been going on ever since Iowa. I’ve heard them say all these things about her,” he said. “Apparently it’s okay to say bad things about a girl.”
He added that the advisers on both campaigns who’d been forced to resign because of controversial comments should have stayed put.
“I don’t think any of these people oughta be asked to resign. All these guys that say bad things about any other campaign, they say, ‘Should they resign?’ My answer is no; they’re repeating party line. They oughta stay right where they are,” he said. “Let’s just saddle up and have an argument. What’s the matter with that? That’s what America’s about, right?”
“All this moaning and groaning — none of these politicians are gonna have anything like the tough time half the people in this audience have already had for the last seven years. This is about you. Don’t you let anybody take this election away from you.”
West Virginia votes May 13. Clinton complained today that the “glitterati” wanted to end the campaign before the state’s voters had a chance to weigh in because his wife had momentum. “In spite of the best efforts of a lot of the elites in the media and other places it looks like we are gonna have an opportunity for everybody to vote in this primary, and I think your vote should be counted, don’t you?
“I know Hillary’s gaining on them when they say, ‘Oh, let’s shut this down now; we don’t want to be divided. Let’s just disenfranchise several of the million people who could vote.
Wouldn’t you like to vote and have your votes counted? Wouldn’t you like to have a voice in this election? Don’t you think that your vote should count as much as the people who voted in Iowa first? Yeah, well so does Hillary.”
Money Talks
The Obama campaign announced that it has posted the candidate’s tax returns on its Web site and challenges Clinton to do the same. His latest maneuver to pressure Hillary Clinton to release hers and hit his Democratic rival on the issue of transparency.
“The returns are complete, including all schedules, and are now available to anyone to view,” the campaign announced in a statement. “The Obama campaign urged Senator Clinton to join Senator Obama in making her returns public. Full disclosure on Senator Clinton’s part is especially important because she recently loaned $5 million to her campaign, shortly after revelations surfaced that her husband was to receive a $20 million payout from Yucaipa, a supermarket holding company that invests in tax shelters in the Cayman Islands.”
Obama and his wife Michelle reported joint income of $991,296 in 2006 (the most recent year released) which included $430,700 in salaries and $506,618 in reported business income.
In 2005, their income was $1,670,995 – a huge jump from 2004, when the couple reported earning $207,342. One interesting note, in 2006, the couple reported donating $60,307 to charity, including $22,500 to the Trinity United Church of Christ.
So far, Clinton has pledged to disclose hers at least three days before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
The Clinton campaign immediately responded with a memo arguing that Obama has not been forthcoming about his record in the Illinois state senate.
How does this controversy about Obama and Hillary’s decisions to release or not release their tax information affect their credibility as candidates for the Presidency? Why does it matter how much each of them make or where they put their personally earned funds? Or is it that people are afraid that Hillary may be misappropriating funds? Why do we need to know about the candidates’ money?
Actions and Words Carry Heavy Repercussions
Welcome back ladies! Well I must say over break quite some interesting things happened as I am sure all of you know pertaining to the presidential elections regarding both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. I’m sorry ladies but with two riveting situations happening I had to ask two questions.
Eliot Spitzer, a superdelagate in New York, in March 2008 was a customer of a large prostitution ring under investigation by the federal government. On March 12th, 2008, Spitzer announced his resignation as governor of New York, effective March 17th, citing “private failings,” in addition to losing his superdelagate vote for Clinton. Even though Spitzer currently is not charged with a crime, four people accused of running the prostitution operation have been charged with violating the Mann Act, which let me add Spitzer helped to put in place as Attorney General. The Mann Act bans carrying women or girls across state lines for prostitution or any immoral purpose.
-
Being one of Clinton’s close friends and former superdelegates do you feel this situation is going to hurt her or reflect upon her regarding the critical time it is right now for Democratic Presidential hopefuls?
Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Barack Obama’s Pastor of 20 years, recently in one of his sermons to his church Trinity United Church of Christ said “we have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians, and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards” and “the government wants us to sing God Bless America… no, no, no! Not God Bless America! God damn America.” Further going to to accuse the U.S. administration of distributing drugs to the black community. Now Obama has had to explain his Pastor’s actions, words, and even go as far as to dismiss Wright Jr. as his Pastor and the support Wright gives regarding Chicago and the church.
-
Do you feel it was right for Obama to have to justify and relinquish ties to his former Pastor of 20 years and what do you think these statements are going to do for his bid regarding Presidency?
Hillary Wins Ohio and Texas!!
In the recent Super Tuesday election Hillary won both Ohio and Texas. Although, Obama is trying to down play the losses, his new campaign strategy indicates otherwise. Just a few days ago Obama had moved his attention on to the republican party rather than focusing on Clinton. Now even with Obama still winning the most delegates he has decided to redirect his attention back to his current opponent Hillary. Obama believes that the comments that Clinton have made about him not having the credentials to be president have negatively affected his campaign. Therefore, he now plans to play the same game and give Clinton the debate that she previously asked for. Do you believe these debates will affect the final vote? Do you believe it is a good idea for Obama to direct his attention back to Clinton? Do you believe the votes of delegates are as important and Obama believes they are or should he be more focused on getting the larger states as Hillary believes?
What do you think, should Sen. Hillary Clinton drop out if she loses Texas & Ohio?
There’s a growing number of voices saying Hillary Clinton should get out of the race unless she can deliver big victories today in Texas and Ohio. People like Governor Bill Richardson believes that the person with the most delegates after the votes should be the nominee. However, Senator Dick Durbin says the delegate math makes it tough for Clinton to win the nomination. He says, “I just hope ultimately she makes an honest appraisal of her chances… I hope that her decision on her future after Tuesday is made in the interest of unity of our party.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein believes that Clinton shouldn’t drop out the race if she doesn’t want to, and that she should ignore the pressure to drop out the race. So, who do you agree with or what is your opinion on this topic?
Obama’s ties to Islam and endorsement from Farrakhan
Winning 11 straight caucuses and primaries since Super Tuesday, Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Hiliary Clinton in delegate count and Obama’s appeal to the people has quickly grown. With that being said, more attempts to discredit Obama as a presidential candidate have been made, especially concerning his ties to Islam. On Monday, a picture said to be leaked by a Clinton campaign aide featuring Obama dressed in a white turban and a wraparound white robe was posted online by The Drudge Report . The picture was actually taken in 2006 when Sen. Obama was visting Kenya and was dressed in Kenyan traditional garb that had been present to him by the elders in Wajir , in northeastern Kenya. Clinton claims that as far as she knows no one in a part of her campaign is responsible for leaking it. Then on Tuesday, talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Sen. Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama” three times while giving an introduction to guest, Sen. John McCain, intentionally alluding to the former Iraqi leader. Later that evening during the Democratic debate in Ohio, Obama was asked about the recent support for his candidacy expressed by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. After denouncing Farrakhan and his anti-semitic statements and noting that he did not solicit his support, Sen. Hilary Clinton suggested that Obama’s comments weren’t good enough, giving her own record of rejecting controversial support during her run for senator in 2000, noting that “there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. Obama responded saying that “if senator Clinton feels that ‘reject’ is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce Farrakhan’s support.” Further rumors have been circulated insinuating that Obama, who is a Christian, and has stated that he has never been Muslim, indeed has ties to the Islamic faith.
How do you feel about Obama’s name and background being used to link the senator to Islam and question his patriotism? What do you think about Hilary’s challenge to Obama during the debate concerning his denounciation of Farrakhan? Do you feel that it is a candidate’s responsibility to “censor’ individual endorsements? Do you think that Obama’s “rejection” of Farrakhan is enough to make Obama lose support among Farrakhan’s followers and enough to make him keep his strong support among the Jewish community? Moreover, do you think that it is better for Obama to distance himself from controversial black leaders such as Farrakhan, as well as Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jesse Jackson in order to prevent alienating white voters?
Ok, I know this is a long post, but bear with me 
. I myself, for one, believe that it is petty to suggest Obama has links to the Islamic faith and attack his patriotism on the grounds of his middle name and some picture of him dressed in tribal garments. I also believe that after witnessing Clinton’s campaign tactics this whole election, I would actually be surprised if her campaign were the ones who DID NOT leak the picture. I think that her being so particular about “rejecting” and “denouncing” support is ridiculous. If a candidate has said that they did not seek that person’s support, and the person has not offered any formal assistance to the campaign and after the candidate denounces the person and the person’s beliefs, I feel that is good enough. I don’t think that it’s a candidate’s responsibility to publicly defame every controversial figure that supports him or her. I don’t think that Obama or any candidate for that matter, can pick and choose who supports him, and if Farrakhan likes Obama, there is nothing that Obama can do about it. Therefore, for her to try to get Obama to “reject” Farrakhan’s praise of him is silly and just a tactic to get Obama to alienate the minister’s followers, which I don’t think will honestly work, because in the end, during the debate, Obama seemed to come out above while Hilary looked silly. I don’t think that Obama should outright isolate himself from certain followers, especially seeing how tight of a race this is going to be. In the end, who the support comes from does not necessarily define the person that is being supported and I strongly feel that Americans need to be more open and know better that Obama is not who supports him.
There Goes Nadar…AGAIN!
Reported recently in the news was Ralph Nadar speaking harshly about Democratic candidates Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. After both candidates stated that they felt as if Nadar could very well cost them their elections, Nadar wasted no time in stating his own beliefs. He accused Obama of namecalling and never “addressing the issue,” while refering to Clinton as the Democrat “most loved by big business.” So who is the candidate Nadar suggests about these two? Himself. He announced on Sunday that he will be making his fourth run for the White House. Although Nadar has had little success in the past, Democratics still fear him running for presidency. Do you agree with the notion that Nadar could draw votes away from the Democratic party’s presidential nomination, potentially helping Republican nominee Sen. John McCain to win the elections in November? Or do you think both Obama and Clinton have established such a strong support system that Nadar will have little influence on the outcome of their campaigns?
McCain and the next Monica Lewinsky?
The focus of the majority of the blogs have been about the Democratic candidates, so I figured I should switch it up a little J.
The ethics of Senator McCain have come into question lately because of a seemingly growing intimate relationship the senator has with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. McCain’s advisors are so concerned with the budding relationship that they have banned the two from seeing each other.
MSNBC.com had this to say about the incident, “A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him.”
Given the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton administration and the effect that had on the popularity of then President Bill Clinton, why do you feel that Senator McCain still has such strong support from the voting population in the election (even though he seems to be following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton)?
